Ross-shire (Parliament of Scotland constituency)

Before the Acts of Union 1707, the barons of the shire of Ross elected commissioners to represent them in the unicameral Parliament of Scotland and in the Convention of the Estates.

From 1708 Ross-shire was represented by one Member of Parliament in the House of Commons of Great Britain.

List of shire commissioners
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

During the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, the sheriffdoms of Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty were jointly represented by one Member of Parliament in the Protectorate Parliament at Westminster. After the Restoration, the Parliament of Scotland was again summoned to meet in Edinburgh.

  • 1661–63, 1685, 1689–93: Sir George Munro of Culraine and Newmore (died 1693) [2]
  • 1661–63, 1678 (convention), 1681–82, 1685: Sir George Mackenzie of Tarbat and Cromarty [3]
  • 1665 convention: John Mackenzie of Inverlawell [4]
  • 1669–74: David Ross of Balnagown [5]
  • 1669–74: Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh [5]
  • 1678 (convention), 1681–82: Sir Roderick Mackenzie of Findone [6]
  • 1685–86: Sir Donald Bayne of Tulloch [7]
  • 1689–97: Sir John Munro of Foulis (died 1697) [1]
  • 1693–1702: Sir Alexander Mackenzie of Coul[8]
  • 1697–1701: Sir Robert Munro of Foulis[1]
  • 1702–07: Sir Kenneth Mackenzie of Scatwell[9]
  • 1702–04: Sir Kenneth Mackenzie of Gairloch (died 1704)[10]
  • 1704–07: George Mackenzie of Cromarty and Grandvale[11]
gollark: I agree that writing everything in intensely horrific JS is bad. I just don't think that much application software which is currently written in C would become worse if written in something safer and higher level.
gollark: I'm quite confident that the majority of user-facing ~~ones~~ computer systems have most of the development effort invested in random applications software which doesn't need to be hyperoptimized.
gollark: The top end grows, but most applications actually aren't that.
gollark: Computers are ridiculously powerful and more than capable of running most general purpose things anyone cares about very fast, if those things are sanely implemented. We know this because they can continue sort of usably working despite JS and such.
gollark: They're already very fast. Unless you're doing some very time sensitive data processing you can afford bounds checks and such in your code.

References
  1. G. E. C., The Complete Baronetage, volume II (1902) p. 400.
  2. Parliamentary Papers, Volume 62, Part 2. p. 596.
  3. Parliamentary Papers, Volume 62, Part 2. pp. 583, 585, 588.
  4. Parliamentary Papers, Volume 62, Part 2. p. 576.
  5. Parliamentary Papers, Volume 62, Part 2. p. 580.
  6. Parliamentary Papers, Volume 62, Part 2. p. 583,585.
  7. Parliamentary Papers, Volume 62, Part 2. p. 588.
  8. Complete Baronetage, vol. IV (1904) p. 297.
  9. Complete Baronetage, vol. IV, p. 408.
  10. Complete Baronetage, vol. IV, p. 411.
  11. Complete Baronetage, vol. II, p. 356.

See also


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.